Why does the Pasuk add the words "Lifnei Hashem" (without 'asher' in front of it) ? See Torah Temimah DH note 27)?
Yoma, 58b: In order to extrapolate "ha'Mizbe'ach lifnei Hashem", 've'Ein ha'Kohen lifnei Hashem'- even when he sprinkles the blood towards the Paroches 1 (as opposed to Yom Kipur, when he stands next to the Paroches). 2
See Torah Temimah Note 27.
Oznayim la'Torah: Because, whereas on Yom Kipur he is atoning for unknown sins which may even have been committed, now he is coming to atone for a known sin and is therefore forced to keep a distance from 'Lifnei Hashem'. See Oznayim la'Torah, DH 'Al Karnos ' and DH 'Mizbe'ach'. who elaborates further.
Having written "Lifnei Hashem", why does the Torah see fit to add "be'Ohel Mo'ed"?
Zevachim, 49a: To teach us that in the event that part of the ceiling of the Heichal caved in, the Kohen Gadol is not permitted to sprinkle the blood. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 28.
Why does the Pasuk write "Kol Dam ha'Par" and not simply 'Kol ha'Dam'?
Zevachim, 52a: To incorporate the blood of the Par Yom ha'Kipurim in the Din of pouring the Shirayim on to the Y'sod.
How can the Torah write "Kol ha'Dam" bearing in mind that the Kohen has already sprinkled some of it towards the Paroches?
Rashi: It means all the remaining blood. 1
Zevachim, 28a: It teaches us - ?Im Eino Inyan? (outside the context under discussion) - that the Kohen Gadol must receive all the blood of the bull in the K'li Shareis, 2
What are the connotations of "Yishpoch"?
Sifra: It means literally 'he shall pour' ? not drip, throw from the bowl or sprinkle with the finger.
Which Y'sod is the Pasuk referring to?
Rashi (in Pasuk 18): The western Y'sod which faces the Ohel Mo'ed.
Whereabouts exactly must the Kohen Gadol pour the blood?
Zevachim, 52a: On to the top of the Y'sod ? as if it would have written 'al Y'sod Mizbach ha'Olah'.
Why does the Torah mention "el Y'sod Mizbach ha'Olah" here, by the Par ha'Eidah (in Pasuk 18) and by the Chatas Nasi (in Pasuk 25)?
Zevachim, 51a: To teach us ... a. "Y'sod Mizbach ha'Olah", 'and not Y'sod Mizbach ha'Penimi'; b. that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi does not have a Y'sod, and c. that pouring the remaining blood on to the Y'sod applies also to the Olah ? in connection with which the Torah does not write it..
What is "Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" coming to teach us?
Zevachim, 51a: It teaches us that the remaining blood must be poured on to the western Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah ? which is the closest to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed from when the Kohen Gadol emerges. 1
Based on the principle "Ein Ma'avirin al ha'Mitzvos'.
?ve?eis Kol Dam ha?Par Yishpoch el Y?sod ha?Mizbe?ach?. On which Y'sod does the Kohen pour the blood?
Refer to 4:18:1:1 and note.
Why does the Torah not mention Kaparah and Selichah by the Chatas of the Kohen Gadol, like it does by those of the Tzibur, the Nasi and the commoner?
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim #1 (both in Pasuk 2): Becuae, due to his distinguished status, he does not attain full atonement with his Korban, until he Davens and implores Hashem to forgive him. 1
Ba'al ha'Turim and Moshav Zekenim (in Pasuk 2) #2: Because, due to the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (4:16) 'Shig'gas Talmud Olah Zadon' 2 he is considered Meizid. 3
Moshav Zekenim #3: Because, like in the following Parshah - regarding the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, the Kohen Gadol's sin is based on the fact that the people subsequently sinned due to his ruling. Consequently, what the Torah writes there - in Pasuk 20 - "ve'Chiper? ve'Nislach Lahem" applies here as well.
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim; Since in his capacity as "an angel of Hashem" (Mal'achi, 2:7), he needs to be completely clean of sin.
Which is particularly relevant to the Kohen Gadol- seeing as the Kohanim are the teachers of Yisrael,
And a Chatas does not atone for Meizid.
Why does the Torah not mention "Re'ach Nicho'ach" or "Isheh la'Hashem" in connection with the Haktaras Emurim of the Parim ha'Nisrafim?
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim (both on Pasuk 2): This is because part of the Korban (the bulk of the animal) was burned outside the Mishkan. Consequently it does not fall under the categoty of "Isheh la'Hashem".
